Gary,
Basically, what you are saying here about Merrell-Wolff is: I (Gary)
don't believe him, in particular where he says that mystical experience
provides a channel for knowledge (Knowledge through Identity -- in later
writings "introception") that is unavailable to those in relative
(ordinary consciousness). So when you rebut him by saying:
"The mind that process the experiences of the physical and the
transcendent is the same mind!"
By saying this, you are denying that Merrell-Wolff had the experience
that he says he had. He is saying that the mind of relative
(subject/object) consciousness is NOT the mind of mystical consciousness
(non-dual). Your statement is merely a SOM belief.
Merrell-Wolff says frequently that (a) he Knows that SOM is false, and
(b) that unless we can match that (mystical) way of Knowing we can only
take his (or other mystics) word for it (Well, there are non-mystical
reasons to reject SOM which you apparently do not accept, but these
reasons do not provide mystical certainty). I choose to accept what he
says. You choose not to. So obviously we cannot argue about it. It does
look to me, though, that your choosing not to is a consequence of your
SOM filters.
By the way, I do not consider Wolff a differential mystic. Check out
Nagarjuna for an example of the latter. (The difference between
differential and centric mysticism is mainly about paths -- the centric
talks more about moving toward a goal (e.g., union with God), while the
differential talks more about dissolving false beliefs (e.g, belief in
SOM, or one's person as self-existing.)
You end up with:
"The point is that faith/ belief does not ever equal TRUTH."
This is news? Merrell-Wolff's point is that Knowing the TRUTH requires
mystical transcendence, that once one gets it, faith/belief are no
longer necessary. I agree with him, that is, my faith is that he and
some other mystics Know what they are talking about. Your faith appears
to be that they don't.
- Scott
Gary Jaron wrote:
Here I would like to address "> Hence my [Scott] recommendation of an
exploration of differential mysticism, to > counter the tendency of the
above toward idolatry. "
Does mysticism, "differential' [not sure what that is?] or any kind give us,
we humans, a way to escape our "idols", our preconceived notions, fixations,
beliefs?"
>
> I tentatively think not. I am inclining to believe that, as I posted
> earlier, when the mystic goes up and in to the communion with the Divine,
> what s/he brings with him/her is what she brings back down. The experience
> maybe a catalyst to some new insight, but it is an insight into ideas,
> belief, etc that already were part of the mystic's background prior to the
> experience.
>
> I have been reading on Scott's recommendation Franklin Merrell-Wolff's
> "Experience and Philosophy: A personal record of transformation and a
> discussion of transcendental consciousness." Merrell-Wolff describes how he
> spent months studying the writings of Shankara, who is "the greatest of the
> Vedantic Sages. He is the founder of the Advaita (non-dual) philosophy."
> [quote from the text.] And it is not surprising at all that Merrell-Wolff's
> mystical insights are all framed within this context. It is an example of
> GIGO, only it is not garbage in and garbage out, but specific cultural
> symbolism of Goodness in means the same specific cultural symbolism of
> Goodness will come out.
>
> I think that traveling up into the infinite is dangerous for our finite
> minds. Hence in order for us not too lose our way we only can experience
> the infinite in terms of our pre-existing finite collection of symbols.
> Hence the mystical way may not be the only or even the best way to gain
> truly innovative new insights. Perhaps unique new perspectives is more
> likely an outcome of encountering the finite. If that finite, be it a
> person or a book, is different than your own pre-existing cultural "map".
> [Here 'culture' is not only referring to the society of which we are a part
> but of our own internal perspective-our inner culture of one.]
>
> I think Wolff got it right when he said the following quote. What is his
> mistake, which he repeats throughout his book is forgetting this insight and
> trying to force the reader into accepting his views as the only truth.
>>From page 325 of the 1994 paperback edition]
> --------------------
> Further, we have no right to assert dogmatically that, even though for our
> science this theory should prove to be ultimately valid, then it must
> necessarily be valid for any competent thinker whatsoever. In fact, it is
> entirely possible, nay more, quite probable, that the scientist of an
> entirely different culture, although of comparable capacity and supplied
> with comparable resources for investigation, would none the less construct
> an entirely different theoretical structure for the organization of their
> corresponding experience. yet, this would not discredit the relative
> validity of the foregoing theory for our present culture. [Note: What is
> "our" culture? Hindu/Buddhist?]
> The value of a theory or of any conceptual formulation lies in the fact that
> it gives the intelligent consciousness a basis for orienting itself and for
> achieving either purposive control of, or intelligent understanding in, the
> sea of existences. In the strictly metaphysical sense, i.e., in the sense
> that is not related to any concrete thinker, no conceptual formulation is
> either true or false. It is simply irrelevant. Nor, on the other hand, can
> experience prove the truth or falsity of any fundamental theory, though it
> can check the various derivative theories.
> If we regard the fundamental theories--the original bases or starting
> points--as only assumptions, then the whole of science is grounded in
> uncertainty and affords no security.
> ------------
> All this is so very true! But all of it is thrown out the window by Wolff
> in his very next sentence when he proclaims that his system of beliefs are a
> way toward certainty! Wolff, like a good Buddhist & or Hindu thinker, has a
> extreme dislike/mistrust in the physical realm of matter. Wolff goes on to
> rhapsodize on about any idea built upon one's encounters with the physical
> realm of perceived matter is not going to be true, but he proclaims, how our
> encounters with the non-physical realm, the transcendent realm of
> consciousness will yield truth. How? The mind that process the experiences
> of the physical and the transcendent is the same mind! If it can't build
> truth, then it can't build truth, period. No matter the source of the
> experience.
>
>>From the 1st person limit perspective of our menu's, of how we perceive
> reality, any Quality Event will be processed in accordance with the Static
> patterns we have before the event. A QE encounter with the Divine will not
> yield anything different than a QE encounter with a good insightful book.
> Although the emotional/feeling maybe much more intense with the Divine.
> They both will get processed in terms of the Static patterns that exist in
> our minds.
>
> We have a tendency to build idols and Merrell-Wolff is no different. The
> way out of getting trapped within our idolatry is to recall the process of
> how we come to believe and build our idols. Wolff keeps forgetting or
> ignoring that process, hence his insistence that he is right. He is right
> for his vantage point only. It is the choice of any thinker whether to
> accept an idea or not.
>
> "In the strictly metaphysical sense, i.e., in the sense that is not
> related to any concrete thinker, no conceptual formulation is either true or
> false. "
>
> The point is that faith/ belief does not ever equal TRUTH.
>
> At least that is my belief,
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:29 BST